delhi

blue9, the problem with trading Aldridge this year is that he just had hip surgery and is in rehab. I think of any talk about trading Aldridge is premature until he rehabs and returns to form in a year. I don't think as a GM you would take a player in rehab until you could see what he had. I don't expect anyone else would as well. In that sense, I think it is safe to say that Aldridge will be in our lineup next year.

I think a new GM, a new Coach could actually do wonders for LaMarcus Aldridge.

I'm especially hoping that the new coaching staff hones in on getting a big man coach like the late Pete Newell to work with Aldridge on some basic fundamentals (footwork: pivots and drop steps; moves: pump fakes, jump hooks).

Aldridge still has wild potential and even laid-back guys can turn on the nasty-nasty when they get on the court. The right coach can find that button to push on Aldridge, so I am not convinced that Aldridge can't go all manimal on us still. Agree, he hasn't shown it, so I'm open to the trade idea.

But, because Aldridge came out of college early, he lost two more years he really needed to hone his basic fundamental low-post skills, and I don't think Coach McMillan got him the right coaches or made the time/commitment to get it done the right way. So I hope the injury and the new coaching staff is a second chance for Aldridge to establish himself as a premiere big man in the leg because we agree that currently he is a borderline all-star at best and we should not be building around him. Agree.

Many fans have come to terms with the Blazers and that we should be in a full rebuild mode with the upcoming draft and two lottery picks, but the front office still seems in denial and wanting to trade draft picks for 'proven' players. OMG.

I wonder what stage of grief the PDX front office is still in over the Oden-Roy injuries: still in denial?

If Paul Allen gets his way with a GM that is not committed to the draft, I would argue that Portland is likely to remain a .500 team, first-round exits or back of the lottery picks. Then, after the experiment yields the expected results (a .500 team that is average) Paul Allen will sell the team after five years and say the NBA isn't as far as the NFL.

I'm ready for some USFL football in Portland to take my mind off the Blazers.

My grave concern for this organization is being influenced by fear. Fear. Fear of failure. Fear of injuries. Fear of losing. Fear of embarrassment of the execs who make poor decisions. Fear of getting young players in the rotation because they might fail. Fear, fear.

For the Team President and the GM of a small market team to publicly state that they are looking to trade out of the draft for established players shows me that our front office has completely been mentally shackled by the injuries of Roy and Oden and the fear of injuries with future draft picks.

Injury shock. Mentally skewed to be risk-averse and go with the proven. Philosophically challenged to understand how a small market team can contend.

If this 'focus' on getting established players is Paul Allen's aversion to rebuilding and this is Allen's new philosophy of basketball, then I will repeat that the Blazers are looking at .500 ball for the next decade or until Paul Allen sells the team and new management is brought in.

A small market team will not be a contender unless they are willing to consistently draft for potential. But, we have to have that philosophy organization wide where the GM drafts the players, and the Coach puts the draft picks in a regular rotation. We don't attract marquee free agents.

We need a GM that has a deep understanding of basketball and one that can put that philosophy into play organization-wide. As long as Larry Miller keeps talking basketball stuff, I'll roll my eyes.

I am seriously beginning to think that Paul Allen's goal with the Blazers is mainly financial now. The Blazers are strictly a business that the PDX fans will continue to consume. Please, give us USFL football sooner than later, then.

Please, stop building around LaMarcus Aldridge's weaknesses and thinking by getting him a point guard all our problems will be solved. Draft the best players available, then move the talent through trades if necessary.

I don't envy Chad Buchanan. I hope whatever happens, though, in PDX that he is retained. For his sake, though, I think he needs to find a post at another NBA franchise.

I hope with GM Buchanan states that he is considering trading the picks that he means trading "up" to get a better pick. I hope that he doesn't mean trading the picks for established players.

For a small market team to abandon the draft (and this deep draft) as its primary means of acquiring talent means that we'll be mediocre at best. A previous article by Mike Tokito summarized the following:

2/3rds of past Blazers all-stars came through the draft;
1/3rd of past Blazers all-stars came through trades;
None of past Blazers all-stars came through free agency.

If previous quotes related to Paul Allen's aversion to "rebuilding" at all or through the draft are true, then I say we are stuck as a franchise. Unless we have an overweight position to use the draft to zero on talent, I think PDX is in this vicious cycle where we remain stuck in .500 land never contending for a title again while Paul Allen is owner.

What would I do in the draft? If possible, I would trade Batum's restricted rights plus our #11 pick and trade "up" to get the #2 or #3 pick and try and get someone with a motor like Michael Kidd-Gilchrist. Let another team handle Batum's contract negotiations.

A lot of caveats and excuses here, kjironman1. I read what you said and think you have taken to defending the front office... again and again. I'd be curious to hear you say a series of bad things about the front office.

I think Larry Miller is a keeper on the financial side of things, so I don't enjoy calling him out for the basketball side of things. The reality is that under Larry Miller there has been great dissension and high turnover on the basketball side of things, and my conclusion is that Larry Miller is in over his head and should not be making any basketball decisions at all.

I think Larry Miller is a highly qualified exec to handle the business side of things, but the minute he starts talking basketball is when he begins to lose support. I'm not for firing Larry Miller. I simply think the lines of responsibility should be clearly defined so that Larry Miller doesn't make any basketball decisions... at all.

But, I do think he is a vaulable asset in the financial area and for that he should be praised.

In the five years of Larry Miller's tenure as Team President, by the end of this summer we will have had four GMs and three coaches. GMs: Pritchard, Cho, Buchanan and _______. Coaches: McMillan, Canales, and ___________.

Look at the teams playing for rings, and you will mostly see a model of stability in the front office from top to bottom. Quality people working together, communicating, responsibilities delegated and understood. Have we had that under Larry Miller?

If attrition is so high in your organization that either people can't get along with you and/or they can't do their job under your supervision, then something is wrong. If you are the person that keeps hiring these people who end up walking after a year or two and with poor results, then what does it tell you about the person doing the interviewing and/or recommending the hires?

Larry Miller said it himself in the great quote above that Sean posted: "I'm the one making the final decisions on a lot of things that go on here. Whether it's business things or basketball things."

Hey, Paul Allen, good luck with that in trying to find a GM that wants to work with a Team President who makes the final decisions and is as qualified as this in basketball things. Somebody, please, tell me what qualifications that Larry Miller has to make decisions on basketball things other than being a marketing manager for the best tennis shoes in the world? High tops or low tops. The Air Jordans are far superior to Chuck Taylor's. Can Larry Miller explain what makes him so qualified? I'm listening.

This isn't about Greg Oden. This isn't about Brandon Roy. This isn't about injuries. When healthy, those guys would have made anyone look good. This is about the ability to re-tool and rebuild to make critical decisions in a compressed amount of time when a franchise is teetering on the brink, and this year was a test sampling of how Larry Miller's final decisions in basketball things are going to look on the floor. Look out below!

Larry Miller's results of last season speak for themselves; to make the excuse of injuries is laughable. There was serious talent and depth on this team at the beginning of the season. With all the turnover in the front office, with all the instability and poor hires, there is one last man standing.

I can understand the regret with Faried. It's my opinion, though, that with Coach McMillan playing LaMarcus Aldridge approx 40 minutes/game this year that Faried may not have seen the court very much as long as Gerald Wallace was on the team.

The great thing about Nolan Smith is that you don't ever have to question his work ethic. This guy is going to work hard to improve.

I like K Faried over N Smith, but I think in 3-4 years we'll see the wisdom that the Nolan Smith decision will work itself out... but we have to commit to getting him in the rotation every night, letting him work out his game, maybe even losing some games so that our young guys can develop because over the long haul all that playing time will equal maturity and Ws.

If we retain JJ Hickson, the Faried decision becomes less of a mistake.

I'm looking forward to seeing him in summer leave. Smith is smart, works hard, wants to make a difference. Go, Nolan!

When I read that the whole Jamal Crawford experiment was held up because Coach Nate McMillan didn't initially give it the green light, it helped me understand that Buchanan really had little power at all last year. When I hear Paul Allen write that both GM and Team President need to agree before bringing personnel decisions to him, it made me understand that the GM is subordinate to the Team President and does not directly report to the owner. Last year, the Blazers had a GM by committee (McMillan-Miller-Buchanan...) and the results on the floor and in the locker room were proof how conflicting basketball philosophies can tear apart an organization.

This GM position, as it has been communicated through Larry Miller and Paul Allen to the press, is not one that anyone worthwhile is going to want to take until there is a serious internal smack down about who does what within this organization. My guess is that Tom Penn has already had that discussion years ago with the higher ups, and Larry Miller won that battle. In my opinion, the Blazers got rid of the wrong guy.

But, if I was Chad Buchanan, I would GO away from this organization and find another job in an organization where there are not so many cooks in the kitchen--where GMs are real GMs and not servants to the higher corporate brass. I don't believe Chad Buchanan will never reach his potential within this one.

I don't think the vast majority of fans think Aldridge is scum. I think fans appreciate the hard work that Aldridge puts in. He has weaknesses as well. I'd like for you to actually talk about that if you could.

I don't think Aldridge's lack of rebounding or physical contact, though, is related to his hip. I think it's his style of play.

Some of us don't believe that Aldridge is a franchise player, don't believe he deserves franchise money, believe he is a borderline all-star at best, and wonder if he will ever have a paint presence in his game--something that is not dependent on an elite point guard. From what I saw this year, Aldridge didn't go to the paint when he wasn't double-teamed. He always preferred the mid-range game, mostly preferred to stay away from contact, didn't get other bigs into foul trouble that often, went games without going to the free-throw line and has an anemic rebounding game. He shoots. He scores. He's great at that just like Dirk Nowitzki but without a three-point shot.

With the new CBA, Dallas showed this year how hard it will be to win an NBA championship with a soft power forward as your #1 big man.

How many games did your Dallas Mavericks win in the playoffs with Dirk Nowitzki as their best player?

So again, some of us think Aldridge has matured, and we see what we are getting; he is good: a successful scorer, a player who prefers the perimeter game, rebounds like an elite small forward, and is a great guy to have on a team. He isn't, though, worth franchise money; he isn't the guy to build around, or the guy to draft players to fit his weaknesses. We should be attempting to draft future stars in their own right and not to rotate in Aldridge's orbit.

LMA is injured, surgery, rehab. We have him on contract for several years. Pretty much a stay until after he rehabs because there are no other options, and I doubt a team would take a guy right after hip surgery.

The Blazers have a serious problem in rebounding, and it isn't going away by keeping both Batum and Aldridge.

How can I put this mildly.

Much like we are waiting for Batum to get more aggressive, I waited for Aldridge. I hoped. As a fan, I defended him. Give him time. Nothing ever materialized from my perspective related to Aldridge as a low-post player... even with Camby on the team.

Back in May before he got hurt, Aldridge was the 72nd best rebounding big-man in the league for all players averaging over 20 minutes. Yep. 72nd. Aldridge can score, has a beautiful mid-range game; he is a good teammate, a loyal Blazers, but he hasn't ever shown the nasty-nasty needed to be a great NBA player.

True, Aldridge is a borderline all-star... this year. I suspect he will be most of his career: borderline, that is. His game is suited for the Olympic style, so my guess is that he would have likely made the Olympic team if not for surgery. I still hope he goes for an experience of a lifetime. But, Aldridge will be lucky, if he stays in the West, to get back to the All-Star game again unless he starts rebounding.

There are generally 5-6 slots on the West All-star Team for centers and power forwards (the East sometimes only puts 3), and there is too much competition in the West: Blake Griffin, Zach Randolph, Kevin Love, Paul Milsap, Derrick Favors, DeMarcus Cousins, Enes Kanter, JaVale McGee, Kendrick Perkins, Serge Ibaka, Marc Gasol, Andrew Bynum... plus all the young studs coming in from the draft in the coming years. Not to mention Tim Duncan, Pau Gasol, and Dirk Nowitzki who are shoo-ins. If Aldridge played in the East, he would be a lock with Chris Bosh.

In prior years, we had a popular center, Kevin Duckworth, whose career average in rebounds was 5.8/game; Duckworth's RP48 stat was 10.8 and similar to LaMarcus Aldridge at 10.7. Duckworth was a two-time All-star. It's possible to have a PF/C rebound below average at their position as Duckworth did. For the Blazers in those years, though, they surrounded Duckworth with rebounders at every position: PF Buck Williams (14.7 RP48), SF Jerome Kersey (RP48: 10.8), SG (Drexler, RP48: 8.5), and a PG (Porter, RP48: 5.3). This team scored more points, put up more shots, had a different style of game, but the point is that they all contributed to the center's weakness. Is Kevin Duckworth the player you want to build your franchise around?

Our small forward's RP48 (Batum) is 7.3 and Aldridge's RP48 is 10.7. "Seattle, we have a problem."

If you want to defend Aldridge's rebounding and say, "Yeah, it was like Kevin Duckworth's," then maybe Aldridge shouldn't get top money on the team. He gets franchise player money, and he rebounds like a mid-level player.

Scoring is the glamor category, but the great players do the small things--such as rebounding-- to make a team great. I haven't seen the rebounding attitude from Aldridge yet. Truth be told, I haven't seen it from Batum as well, and we have a serious problem that the front office needs to watch with our new GM and a new coach needs to address. Rebounding is largely about heart and attitude and the serious application of some technique. It takes a motor and desire. I'd like to see either Aldridge or Batum get that, but I haven't seen it yet. Do we keep waiting? and waiting? Would a different style of basketball help their numbers? Are we changing our style of basketball with a new GM? A new Coach? Other teams play a slower style of ball and still put up superior rebounding numbers.

Batum's and Aldridge's lack of rebounding isn't complementary; it's a serious weakness for us to yield back that much rebounding and paint presence with our starting SF and PF.

It's clear that just getting a rebounder doesn't mean you're going to win. But, the times the Blazers have been consistently successful (NBA Championship in 70s and Finals in 90s), there were serious rebounders at power forward. Sure, exceptions will be found, but I'd rather try for the norm. In short, Aldridge doesn't deserve the franchise money he is getting with the way he rebounds. I'll vote STAY but only because he is injured and in rehab and not likely to be able to be moved until he is healthy.

kjironman1, true, your posts are generally accurate such as the one regarding Noah Croom, where, if my memory serves me correctly, you simply copied and pasted a chunk of info from another website into your post and provided limited but helpful commentary. Yes, I just double-checked the article. True.

It is the commentary part that I would like to see more of in your posts: basketball commentary; otherwise, your posts simply involve being a roving, stat police, correcting us all with your superior knowledge of basketball as you've informed us above that you possess and none, I hazard, would question your superiority.

I am familiar with your posts, but I'd like to read more of your thoughts and insights. I'd like to see more of your game on here. It's insights I want, mate, not just facts. Bring me some basketball. We'll disagree from time to time, but I can certainly learn things from you as you've reminded us all. Peace to you, kjironman1.

I don't get this at all. I read this, and none of it sounds as if the GM will be empowered to do anything without getting some committee approval. I would really like an article on what the authority structure in this organization is and who does what as compared to other NBA organizations. What role will Larry Miller play in the future GM? And what did Paul Allen mean by "the Team President and the GM together have to bring personnel decisions to me..." in Quick's last article on the GM process?

Here is what I would have been happy to hear:

"Our future GM will answer directly to Paul Allen. Paul Allen wants to be involved, so he expects the GM to thoroughly explain his decision-making process, so the Blazers need a GM that has strong communication skills and works well with Paul Allen. But, with Paul Allen's approval, the GM will make the final decisions about who is the next coach and what players are brought in."

Anytime Larry Miller talks about "we" I cringe after the year we've just endured. Chad Buchanan didn't deserve to be shackled like he was. I hope the use of "we" is simply a rhetorical device, but I would like more definitive statements that the GM will work with Paul Allen but state it publicly that the GM is empowered to apply his basketball philosophy to which the owner subscribes.

If we get two different basketball philosophies in this organization at war again, which we have had with a Euro-GM (Pritchard) and an Iso-Coach (McMillan), this will all be history repeating itself. Empower the GM. Neuter the Team President related to basketball decisions. With Allen's approval, let the GM hire the coach. Period. Wait to hire a coach until after we get a GM. This is a philosophical decision. I'd rather have some unknown assistant that can work consistently with a GM's philosophy than trying to fit a GM to a coach. Don't put the cart before the horse. Stop the madness, Miller.

Please, kjironman1 and getadog, don't comment on my post. I know how other NBA organizations are run. I don't need a rehash of that. Unless you're going to quote the front office, don't guess. If you want to provide a quote and interact with it, fine; otherwise, don't go there with guesses.